IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/anresc/v50y2013i3p911-934.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying priority target areas for the Knoxville–Knox County hillside and ridgetop protection plan: using the value of visual amenity during the real estate boom of 2002–2007 and the recession of 2008

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Chadourne
  • Seong-Hoon Cho
  • Roland Roberts

Abstract

In support of the Joint City–County Taskforce on Ridge, Slope, and Hillside Development and Protection, the goal of this research was to identify areas within Knox County, Tennessee, where views of hillsides and ridges were most valued and how those values were affected by different economic climates. The amenity values added to houses by their views were quantified for houses sold during a housing boom and again during a recession. The results of this study show that forest views add significant value to homes during both periods. However, the amenity value added to houses decreased 13 % from the boom period to the recession period, implying that forest views decrease in value when there is an economic recession. Additionally, the value of the view of barren/scrub land, which was not significant in the boom period, became significant during the recession, reducing house value almost $112 per visible acre and showing that while consumers are less inclined to pay more for views of forest, they are also less willing to endure disamenity views during a recession. When the forest land values were mapped to highlight planned areas with consistently high visual amenity values across both periods, some areas exhibited amenity values in excess of $100 per visible acre of forest land. The areas with the highest amenity values of forest land views roughly correspond to the areas with the highest disamenity values of barren/scrub view. These results imply that these areas represent the highest potential return on investment for preservation and reforestation efforts. Copyright Springer-Verlag 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Chadourne & Seong-Hoon Cho & Roland Roberts, 2013. "Identifying priority target areas for the Knoxville–Knox County hillside and ridgetop protection plan: using the value of visual amenity during the real estate boom of 2002–2007 and the recession of 2," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 50(3), pages 911-934, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:anresc:v:50:y:2013:i:3:p:911-934
    DOI: 10.1007/s00168-012-0519-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s00168-012-0519-z
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00168-012-0519-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lewis, David J. & Provencher, Bill & Butsic, Van, 2009. "The dynamic effects of open-space conservation policies on residential development density," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 239-252, May.
    2. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Kim, Seung Gyu & Roberts, Roland K. & Jung, Suhyun, 2009. "Amenity values of spatial configurations of forest landscapes over space and time in the Southern Appalachian Highlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2646-2657, August.
    3. Delores Conway & Christina Li & Jennifer Wolch & Christopher Kahle & Michael Jerrett, 2010. "A Spatial Autocorrelation Approach for Examining the Effects of Urban Greenspace on Residential Property Values," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 150-169, August.
    4. Jeffrey P. Cohen & Cletus C. Coughlin, 2008. "Spatial Hedonic Models Of Airport Noise, Proximity, And Housing Prices," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(5), pages 859-878, December.
    5. Bradford Case & Henry O. Pollakowski & Susan M. Wachter, 1991. "On Choosing Among House Price Index Methodologies," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 19(3), pages 286-307, September.
    6. Mary Riddel, 2001. "A Dynamic Approach to Estimating Hedonic Prices for Environmental Goods: An Application to Open Space Purchase," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(4), pages 494-512.
    7. Adina M. Merenlender, 2006. "Habitat and Open Space at Risk of Land-Use Conversion: Targeting Strategies for Land Conservation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(1), pages 28-42.
    8. Bastian, Chris T. & McLeod, Donald M. & Germino, Matthew J. & Reiners, William A. & Blasko, Benedict J., 2002. "Environmental amenities and agricultural land values: a hedonic model using geographic information systems data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 337-349, March.
    9. Elena G. Irwin, 2002. "The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(4), pages 465-480.
    10. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Bowker, James Michael & Park, William M., 2006. "Measuring the Contribution of Water and Green Space Amenities to Housing Values: An Application and Comparison of Spatially Weighted Hedonic Models," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(3), pages 1-23, December.
    11. Chang‐Moo Lee & Peter Linneman, 1998. "Dynamics of the Greenbelt Amenity Effect on the Land Market—The Case of Seoul's Greenbelt," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 107-129, March.
    12. Brent L. Mahan & BStephen Polasky & Richard M. Adams, 2000. "Valuing Urban Wetlands: A Property Price Approach," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(1), pages 100-113.
    13. Smith, V. Kerry & Poulos, Christine & Kim, Hyun, 2002. "Treating open space as an urban amenity," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 107-129, February.
    14. Acharya, Gayatri & Bennett, Lynne Lewis, 2001. "Valuing Open Space and Land-Use Patterns in Urban Watersheds," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2-3), pages 221-237, March-May.
    15. Kelejian, Harry H & Prucha, Ingmar R, 1998. "A Generalized Spatial Two-Stage Least Squares Procedure for Estimating a Spatial Autoregressive Model with Autoregressive Disturbances," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 99-121, July.
    16. Seong-Hoon Cho & Dayton Lambert & Seung Kim & Roland Roberts & William Park, 2011. "Relationship between value of open space and distance from housing locations within a community," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 393-414, December.
    17. Brasington, David M. & Hite, Diane, 2005. "Demand for environmental quality: a spatial hedonic analysis," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 57-82, January.
    18. Sander, Heather & Polasky, Stephen & Haight, Robert G., 2010. "The value of urban tree cover: A hedonic property price model in Ramsey and Dakota Counties, Minnesota, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1646-1656, June.
    19. Clapp, John M & Giaccotto, Carmelo, 1998. "Price Indices Based on the Hedonic Repeat-Sales Method: Application to the Housing Market," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 5-26, January.
    20. Raymond B. Palmquist & Leon E. Danielson, 1989. "A Hedonic Study of the Effects of Erosion Control and Drainage on Farmland Values," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(1), pages 55-62.
    21. Raymond J. G. M. Florax & Serge Rey, 1995. "The Impacts of Misspecified Spatial Interaction in Linear Regression Models," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Luc Anselin & Raymond J. G. M. Florax (ed.), New Directions in Spatial Econometrics, chapter 5, pages 111-135, Springer.
    22. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Poudyal, Neelam C. & Roberts, Roland K., 2008. "Spatial analysis of the amenity value of green open space," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 403-416, June.
    23. James Hansen, 2009. "Australian House Prices: A Comparison of Hedonic and Repeat‐Sales Measures," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 85(269), pages 132-145, June.
    24. Geoghegan, Jacqueline & Wainger, Lisa A. & Bockstael, Nancy E., 1997. "Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: an ecological economics analysis using GIS," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 251-264, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shanaka Herath, 2021. "Elevating the Value of Urban Location: A Consumer Preference-Based Approach to Valuing Local Amenity Provision," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    2. Fernandez, Mario Andres & Bucaram, Santiago, 2019. "The changing face of environmental amenities: Heterogeneity across housing submarkets and time," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 449-460.
    3. Du, Xuejun & Huang, Zhonghua, 2018. "Spatial and temporal effects of urban wetlands on housing prices: Evidence from Hangzhou, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 290-298.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Waltert, Fabian & Schläpfer, Felix, 2010. "Landscape amenities and local development: A review of migration, regional economic and hedonic pricing studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 141-152, December.
    2. Sanglim Yoo & John E. Wagner, 2016. "A review of the hedonic literatures in environmental amenities from open space: a traditional econometric vs. spatial econometric model," International Journal of Urban Sciences, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 141-166, March.
    3. Seong-Hoon Cho & Dayton Lambert & Seung Kim & Roland Roberts & William Park, 2011. "Relationship between value of open space and distance from housing locations within a community," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 393-414, December.
    4. Fabian Waltert & Felix Schlaepfer, 2007. "The role of landscape amenities in regional development: a survey of migration, regional economic and hedonic pricing studies," SOI - Working Papers 0710, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
    5. Seong-Hoon Cho & Christopher D. Clark & William M. Park & Seung Gyu Kim, 2009. "Spatial and Temporal Variation in the Housing Market Values of Lot Size and Open Space," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(1), pages 51-73.
    6. Anderson, Soren T. & West, Sarah E., 2006. "Open space, residential property values, and spatial context," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 773-789, November.
    7. H. Allen Klaiber & Joshua K. Abbott & V. Kerry Smith, 2017. "Some Like It (Less) Hot: Extracting Trade-Off Measures for Physically Coupled Amenities," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(4), pages 1053-1079.
    8. Belcher, Richard N. & Chisholm, Ryan A., 2018. "Tropical Vegetation and Residential Property Value: A Hedonic Pricing Analysis in Singapore," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 149-159.
    9. Poudyal, Neelam C. & Hodges, Donald G. & Tonn, Bruce & Cho, Seong-Hoon, 2009. "Valuing diversity and spatial pattern of open space plots in urban neighborhoods," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 194-201, May.
    10. Marisa J. Mazzotta & Elena Besedin & Ann E. Speers, 2014. "A Meta-Analysis of Hedonic Studies to Assess the Property Value Effects of Low Impact Development," Resources, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-31, January.
    11. Abbott, Joshua K. & Klaiber, H. Allen, 2010. "Is all space created equal? Uncovering the relationship between competing land uses in subdivisions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 296-307, December.
    12. Jay Mittal, 2017. "Valuing Visual Accessibility of Scenic Landscapes in a Single Family Housing Market: A Spatial Hedonic Approach," ERES eres2017_1, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
    13. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Poudyal, Neelam C. & Roberts, Roland K., 2008. "Spatial analysis of the amenity value of green open space," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 403-416, June.
    14. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Kim, Seung Gyu & Roberts, Roland K. & Jung, Suhyun, 2009. "Amenity values of spatial configurations of forest landscapes over space and time in the Southern Appalachian Highlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2646-2657, August.
    15. Liu, Sezhu & Hite, Diane, 2013. "Measuring the Effect of Green Space on Property Value: An Application of the Hedonic Spatial Quantile Regression," 2013 Annual Meeting, February 2-5, 2013, Orlando, Florida 143045, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    16. Gregmar I. Galinato & Pitchayaporn Tantihkarnchana, 2018. "The amenity value of climate change across different regions in the United States," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(37), pages 4024-4039, August.
    17. Guillaume POUYANNE & Frederic GASCHET, 2013. "The Effect Of Current And Future Land Use On House Prices," ERSA conference papers ersa13p249, European Regional Science Association.
    18. Marta Sylla & Tadeusz Lasota & Szymon Szewrański, 2019. "Valuing Environmental Amenities in Peri-Urban Areas: Evidence from Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, January.
    19. Reeves, Tyler & Mei, Bin & Siry, Jacek & Bettinger, Pete & Ferreira, Susana, 2020. "Effect of working forest conservation easements on surrounding property values," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    20. Fernandez, Mario Andres & Bucaram, Santiago, 2019. "The changing face of environmental amenities: Heterogeneity across housing submarkets and time," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 449-460.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Q51; R14;

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:anresc:v:50:y:2013:i:3:p:911-934. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.